Property Steal

leonidas83

Hello guys,

Just wondering about the possible legal implications if any of another auctioneer taking business from another by way of a sale or leasing arangement.

e.g. Auctioneer agrees deal to sell a property for vendor, after a few months of no activity, vendor is getting worried. Meanwhile another auctioneer approaches him telling him he has a cash buyer for his premises but will only complete the sale for him if the other auctioneer is given the sale of the property. Does any party in this leave themselves open to being sued, etc.

This is all assuming that prior to any sale being completed the previous auctioneer is paid off or has his contract terminated by the vendor

Thanks for any replies, its much appreciated. If this is the wrong forum feel free to move it.

Pat Mustard

I am modifying your post to make sense of it. Correct me if I am wrong.

leonidas83 wrote: »

e.g. Auctioneer A agrees deal to sell a property for vendor, after a few months of no activity, vendor is getting worried. Meanwhile, Auctioneer B approaches the vendor telling him he has a cash buyer for his premises but will only complete the sale for him if Auctioneer B is given the sale of the property. Does any party in this leave themselves open to being sued, etc.

Can't answer your question with certainty, as we do not know what the contractual arrangements were between the vendor and A.

However, generally, an auctioneer expects to be paid in relation to a sale in which he has introduced the buyer.

In this case, A has not introduced any buyer. Therefore, it appears that the vendor should be able to terminate his arrangement with A, and then engage B to arrange the sale of the property.

However, all of this is subject to what has been agreed between A and the vendor. If their contract stipulates other conditions, then those need to be examined.

It is likely that no action arises between A and B, provided that the vendor terminates his arrangement with A.

However, if the vendor cannot successfully terminate his contract with A, and if he ends up in breach of that contract as a result of B's inducement, then B may have committed the tort of inducing another to commit breach of contract. B may be liable to A as a result.

leonidas83

The Mustard wrote: »

I am modifying your post to make sense of it. Correct me if I am wrong.



Can't answer your question with certainty, as we do not know what the contractual arrangements were between the vendor and A.

However, generally, an auctioneer expects to be paid in relation to a sale in which he has introduced the buyer.

In this case, A has not introduced any buyer. Therefore, it appears that the vendor should be able to terminate his arrangement with A, and then engage B to arrange the sale of the property.

However, all of this is subject to what has been agreed between A and the vendor. If their contract stipulates other conditions, then those need to be examined.

It is likely that no action arises between A and B, provided that the vendor terminates his arrangement with A.

However, if the vendor cannot successfully terminate his contract with A, and if he ends up in breach of that contract as a result of B's inducement, then B may have committed the tort of inducing another to commit breach of contract. B may be liable to A as a result.

Yes, maybe I should have worded it better, thanks for that, it was exactly the kind of information I was looking for. So it really depends on the type of contract the vendor has with Auctioneer A & at what stage he manages to terminate this contract with that auctioneer.

Pat Mustard

leonidas83 wrote: »

Yes, maybe I should have worded it better, thanks for that, it was exactly the kind of information I was looking for. So it really depends on the type of contract the vendor has with Auctioneer A & at what stage he manages to terminate this contract with that auctioneer.

Well, I was just looking hypothetical possible scenarios and likely outcomes of those.

Realistically, all of the paperwork would have to be examined, and full details of the contract would have to be taken, before the correct answer could be pinpointed.